On May 19, 2023, the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi, No. 21-757, unanimously held that the claims of two Amgen patents, both directed to a genus of potentially millions of antibodies, are invalid because the patents failed...more
On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Stingray IP Solutions, LLC, No. 23-102 granted a writ of mandamus, vacating a decision of the Eastern District Court of Texas which had...more
On October 5, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas recommended denying-in-part a motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement, holding that requisite knowledge of the asserted...more
On March 16, 2022, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California certified two of the hot button issues splitting district courts on the standard for pleading willful infringement (see order),...more
3/24/2022
/ Appeals ,
Bad Faith ,
CAFC ,
Cease and Desist ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Interlocutory Appeals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Willful Infringement
On January 26, 2022, in what appears to be a case of first impression, U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant defendant’s...more
On January 18, 2022, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California sided with the majority of divided district courts, dismissing claims of willful and induced infringement that based the...more
On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the...more
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because...more
Recently in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:17-cv-08509 (C.D. Cal.) (October 26, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant, Skechers U.S.A.,...more
11/16/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
35 U.S.C. § 285 ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Bifurcation ,
Design Patent ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Judgment on the Pleadings ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Nike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
Skechers ,
Willful Infringement
On November 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 19-2402, resolved a split among district courts over what constitutes...more
11/13/2020
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Biosimilars ,
FRCP 12(b)(3) ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Principal Place of Business ,
Venue
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent...more
8/18/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(6) ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Willful Infringement
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’...more
8/4/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Amended Complaints ,
Contributory Infringement ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Induced Infringement ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Volkswagen ,
Willful Infringement
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in VLSI Tech. LLC. v. Intel Corp, No. 18-0966-CFC, denied VLSI’s motion for leave to amend to add claims for willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos....more
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)...more
On August 13, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-cv-14305, held that venue was not proper in New Jersey over...more
8/24/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Bristol-Myers Squibb ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Venue
On June 17, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-01043, held that venue was not proper in Delaware over Mylan...more
6/27/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Bristol-Myers Squibb ,
Dismissals ,
FRCP 12(b)(3) ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Improper Venue ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Novartis ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Principal Place of Business ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
On October 18, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 17-00379, held that venue was not proper in Delaware over Mylan Pharmaceuticals...more
On May 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re: ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 2018-113, held that Federal circuit law governs the burden of proof for venue challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and...more
On April 16, 2018 in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma v. Emcure Pharms., Nos. 2017-1798, -1799, -1800, affirmed the United States District Court for...more
In a nonprecedential opinion issued on November 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that Apotex’s aBLAs for biosimilar versions of Neulasta® and Neupogen® did...more
11/20/2017
/ Amgen ,
Appeals ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Witness Statements
On July 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, in a precedential opinion in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2015-2066 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017), a district court...more
7/26/2017
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
FDA Approval ,
Generic Drugs ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
Sandoz
On May 10, 2017, Amgen filed a complaint in the District of Delaware asserting that, under section 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), Coherus infringed Amgen’s U.S....more
5/18/2017
/ aBLA ,
Amgen ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Civil Conspiracy ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Misappropriation ,
Patent Dance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Trade Secrets
On Monday, January 9, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for certiorari to reverse an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a broad scope of...more